About your Search

20121201
20121231
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)
. and in 1973 when roe v wade was decided, abortion was legal in only four states. given the court's historic inclination to favor expansion of freedoms, even when public opinion is not on its side, it would seem plausible the justices will conform what a majority believe is right and up hold the constitutionality of marriage equality. if this is in fact the result, president obama will guide one of the last remaining civil rights battles to completion. a moment that may come to define his presidency as much as anything he has done to date. similarly on the subject of immigration, president obama has made clear that comprehensive immigration reform will happen in the next four years. stung by rue milluating losses at the polls in november, the gop understands the problems its faces among the young, the brown and the young and brown. the only question is just how long it takes the republican party to come to terms with this. if conservatives are smart they will try to find a seat at the table. less the president and the democratic party secure the votes of every single one of the 11.1 undocume
and roe versus wade. he reached out in lawrence versus texas and grutter v. bollinger. those who don't want them to reach out in this case do want them to reach out anytime it helps their cause. maybe they even reached out in allen's case. my point is the court shouldn't just make things up. but they are, to a large extent, a policymaking body. that is what they do. they take cases and they decide broader principles. here we have a very serious problem that justifies a little stretching, not in my opinion to ban racial preferences, and went to socioeconomic components. every other institution in american society has failed to come to grips with this problem. the university systematically misleads applicants over how it works. no major politician has had a case of affirmative action more than 20 years -- excuse me, not 20, but 16 years. we are going to have racial preferences for the next hundred years or more unless the supreme court does something to slow down. >> a nonpolitical ranch of a policymaking body. say it ain't so. [applause] >> comments? >> i would like to talk about what
all, reverse roe v. wade. the commerce clause was not part of that agenda. again, any story i tell and "the oath," the idea that an individual mandate was unconstitutional was invented out of thin air essentially fixed months before the law was passed. the individual mandate had been pioneered by the conservative heritage foundation and the late 80s. decades it had been discussed and no one had ever suggested it was unconstitutional. you might think. someone might've noticed this really unconstitutional. it is an example i think and i believe robert staines of the kind of political frenzy. a desire of the part of republicans to defeat the saw at any cost, any price and roberts said this is a diversion from what we need to do as conservatives. roberts did not suddenly last year discoveries and are moderate. he is not a moderate. he will not suddenly start siding with four liberals. but in this case, he preserved his plays and he preserved the courts place as a relatively neutral arbiter and expanded his own power and reputation and enormous lake, which he will use sooner rather than
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)